Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T12:01:24.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Archaeological Politics and Public Interest in Paleoamerican Studies: Lessons from Gordon Creek Woman and Kennewick Man

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Douglas W. Owsley and
Richard L. Jantz
Douglas W. Owsley
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Mail Stop 112, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560
Richard L. Jantz
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, 250 South Stadium Hall, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-0720
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses the Kennewick lawsuit as it relates to the intended purposes of Nagpra. It also reflects upon comments made by Swedlund and Anderson (1999) in a recent American Antiquity Forum, which conceptually linked two ancient skeletons, Gordon Creek Woman and Kennewick Man. Their assertions indicate the need for clarifying specific issues and events pertaining to the case. We comment on how times have changed with the passage of NAGPRA, how differently these two skeletons have been treated by the media and the scientists interested in them, and show how discussions of biological affiliation have relevance. There is still much to be learned from Kennewick Man and Gordon Creek Woman. But attempts to bring the concept of race or racial typing into the picture show misunderstanding regarding the use of morphological data in tracing population historical relationships, not to mention obfuscating the scientific issues they raise.

Résumé

Résumé

Este artículo discute la controversia de Kennewick y su relatión con los objetivos propuestos por NAGPRA (Ley de Protectión y Repatriatión de Restos Nativo-americanos) y también los comentarios hechos por Swedlund y Anderson (1999) en un reciente foro de American Antiquity, los cuales están vinculados conceptualmente con dos antiguos esqueletos; la mujer de Gordon Creek y el hombre de Kennewick. Sus afirmaciones indican la necesidad de clarificar aspectos específicos y eventos pertenecientes al caso. Hablamos sobre cómo ha cambiado NAGPRA con el paso del tiempo, de cómo estos dos restos han sido tratados por los medios y los científicos interesados en ellos y de la relevancia que tienen las discusiones sobre afiliación biológica. Todavía queda mucho por aprender acerca del hombre de Kennewick y la mujer de Gordon Creek. Pero los esfuerzos para sacar a la luz el concepto de raza o tipo racial, muestran la falta de entendimiento respecto al uso de datos morfológicos para establecer las relaciones históricas de poblaciones.

Information

Type
Forum
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 66 , Issue 4 , October 2001, pp. 565 - 575
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References Cited

Anderson, D. 1967 The Gordon Creek Burial. Wyoming Archaeologist 10: 27–36.Google Scholar
Anderson, D., Swedlund, A., and Breternitz, D. A. 1997 Let's Avoid PaleoRacial Anthropology. Anthropology Newsletter 38(9): 13–14.Google Scholar
Archambault, J. 2000 Affidavit dated June 19, 2000 for the Kennewick case. Submitted U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental & Natural Resources Division, General Litigation Section, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Babbitt, B. 2000 Letter from Secretary of the Interior to Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera Regarding Disposition of the Kennewick Human Remains. September 21, 2000. Available http: //www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/.Google Scholar
Barié, C. G. 2000 The First American. What do the experts say? Results of an unpublished questionnaire compiled during research for Bild der Wissenschaft. Google Scholar
Breternitz, D.A., Swedlund, A.C., and Anderson, D. C. 1971 An Early Burial from Gordon Creek, Colorado. American Antiquity 36: 170–182.Google Scholar
Buikstra, J. E., and Ubelaker, D. H. 1994 Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series, vol. 44, edited by Buikstra, J. E. and Ubelaker, D.H. pp. 1–202. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series, Fayetteville, Arkansas.Google Scholar
Chatters, J. C. 2000 The Recovery and First Analysis of an Early Holocene Human Skeleton from Kennewick, Washington. American Antiquity 65: 291–316.Google Scholar
Chatters, J. C, Neves, W. A., and Blum, M. 1999 The Kennewick Man: A First Multivariate Analysis. Current Research in the Pleistocene 16: 87–90.Google Scholar
Dixon, E. J. 1999 Bones, Boats, & Bison. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Goodman, A. 1997 Racializing Kennewick Man. Anthropology Newsletter 38(10): 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruhn, R. 1994 The Pacific Coast Route of Initial Entry: An Overview. In Methological Theory for Investigating the Peopling of the Americas, edited by Bonnichsen, R., pp. 249–256. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis.Google Scholar
Harding, R. M. 1990 Modern European Cranial Variables and Blood Polymorphisms Show Comparable Spatial Patterns. Human Biology 62: 733–745.Google ScholarPubMed
Howells, W.W. 1973 Cranial Variation in Man. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 67. Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Howells, W.W. 1989 Skull Shapes and the Map. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 79. Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Howells, W.W. 1995 Who's Who in Skulls. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 82. Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hrdlička, A. 1937 The Minnesota ‘Man.’ American Journal of Physical Anthropology 22: 175–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jantz, R. L. 1996 Metric Identification of Unknown Crania from Montana. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee. Submitted to Department of Repatriation, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Copies available from Department of Repatriation, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Jantz, R. L. 1997 Cranial, Postcranial and Discrete Trait Variation. In Bioarcheology of the North Central United States, vol. 49, edited by Owsley, D. W. and Rose, J.C. pp. 240–247. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series, Fayetteville, Arkansas.Google Scholar
Jantz, R. L., and Owsley, D. W. 1994 White Traders in the Upper Missouri: Evidence from the Swan Creek Site. In Skeletal Biology in the Great Plains: Migration, Warfare, Health and Subsistence, edited by Owsley, D. W. and Jantz, R.L. pp. 189–201. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C..Google Scholar
Jantz, R. L., and Owsley, D. W. 1997 Pathology, Taphonomy and Cranial Morphometries of the Spirit Cave Mummy. Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 40: 62–84.Google Scholar
Jantz, R. L., and Owsley, D. W. 2001 Variation among Early North American Crania. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 114: 146–155.Google Scholar
Jenks, A. E. 1936 Pleistocene Man in Minnesota: A Fossil Homo Sapiens. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Jenks, A. E. 1937 Minnesota's Brown's Valley Man and Associated Burial Artifacts. American Anthropological Association Memoir 49. Menasha, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Lahr, M. M. 1995 Patterns of Modern Human Diversification: Implications for Amerindian Origins. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 38: 163–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahr, M. M. 1997 History in the bones. Evolutionary Anthropology 6(1): 2–6.Google Scholar
Lindsay, H. K. 2000 Affidavit dated July 31, 2000 for the Kennewick case. Submitted U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental & Natural Resources Division, General Litigation Section, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
McKeown, A. 2000 Investigating Variation among Arikara Crania Using Geometric Morphometry. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Morell, V. 1998 Kennewick Man's Contemporaries. Science 280: 191.Google Scholar
National Park Service 2000a Kennewick Man Over 9000Years Old and Native American According to NAGPRA Law. U.S. Department of the Interior, Archaeology and Ethnology Program, Press Release, 13 January 2000. Available http: //www.cr.nps.gov/ aad/kennewick/doi 1 _ 13_00.htm.Google Scholar
National Park Service 2000b Interior Department Determines “Kennewick Man “ Remains to go to Five Indian Tribes. U.S. Department of the Interior, Archaeology and Ethnology Program, Press Release 25 September 2000. Available http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/doi9_25_00.htm.Google Scholar
Neves, W. A., and Blum, M. 2000 The Buhl Burial: A Comment on Green et al. American Antiquity 65: 191–193.Google Scholar
Neves, W. A., and Pucciarelli, H. M. 1991 Morphological Affinities of the First Americans: An Exploratory Analysis Based on Early South American Human Remains. Journal of Human Evolution 21: 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ousley, S., Owsley, D., and Mulhern, D. 2000 Lost and Found in the Museum: Repatriation, Ancestry, Ethnicity, and History. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Supplement 30: 243.Google Scholar
Owsley, D. W. 1999 From Jamestown to Kennewick: An Analogy Based on Early Americans. In Who Were the First Americans, edited by Bonnichsen, R., pp. 127–140. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis.Google Scholar
Owsley, D. W. 2000 Forensic Case Report for SI-9613 (GLCA-95-3563). Report on file, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Owsley, D. W, and Jantz, R. L. 1999 Databases for Paleoamerican Skeletal Biology Research. In Who Were the First Americans, edited by Bonnichsen, R., pp. 79–96. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis.Google Scholar
Owsley, D. W, and Jantz, R. L. 2001 Kennewick Man: A Kin? Too Distant. In Naming the Stones/Claiming the Bones, edited by Barkan, E. and Bush, R.. Getty Research Institute's Issues and Debates series, in press.Google Scholar
Owsley, D. W, and Jantz, R. L. 2002 Nearsightedness in Paleoamerican Research: Historical Perspective and Contemporary Analysis. In Paleoamerican Prehistory: Cultural and Biological Diversity of the First Americans, edited by Bonnichsen, R., Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, in press.Google Scholar
Powell, J. F., and Neves, W. A. 1999 Craniofacial Morphology of the First Americans: Pattern and Process in the Peopling of the New World. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 42: 153–188.Google Scholar
Powell, J. F. and Rose, J. C. 1999 Chapter 2. Report on the Osteological Assessment of the “Kennewick Man” Skeleton (CENWW97.Kennewick). In Report on the Nondestructive Examination, Description, and Analysis of the Human Remains from Columbia Park, Kennewick, Washington [Oct. 1999]. National Park Service, http: //www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/.Google Scholar
Preston, D. 1997 Kennewick's Message of Unification. Anthropology Newsletter 38(9): 2.Google Scholar
Relethford, J. H., and Harpending, H. C. 1994 Craniometric Variation, Genetic Theory, and Modern Human Origins. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 95: 249–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneider, A. L. 1999 Kennewick Man Myths. Anthropology Newsletter 40(4): 21–22.Google Scholar
Simic, A. 2000 Affidavit dated March 10,2000 for the Kennewick case. Submitted to U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental & Natural Resources Division, General Litigation Section, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Stapp, D.C, and Longenecker, J. G. 1999 The Times, They are A-Changin’: Can Archaeologists and Native Americans Change with the Times? SAA Bulletin 18(2): 18–20, 27.Google Scholar
Stapp, D.C, and Longenecker, J. G. 2000 Dr. Lepper is Wrong. SAA Bulletin 18(4): 22–24.Google Scholar
Steele, D. G., and Powell, J. F. 1992 Peopling of the Americas: Paleobiological Evidence. Human Biology 64: 303–336.Google Scholar
Steele, D. G., and Powell, J. F. 1994 Paleobiological Evidence of the Peopling of the Americas: A Morphometric View. In Method and Theory for Investigating the Peopling of the Americas, edited by Bonnichsen, R. and Steele, D.G. pp. 141–163. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis.Google Scholar
Steele, D. G., and Powell, J. F. 1999 Peopling of the Americas: A Historical and Comparative Perspective. In Who Were the First Americans, edited by Bonnichsen, R., pp. 97–126. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis.Google Scholar
Swedlund, A., and Anderson, D. 1999 Gordon Creek Women Meets Kennewick Man: New Interpretations and Protocols Regarding the Peopling of the Americas. American Antiquity 64: 569–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tattersall, I., and Schwartz, J. H. 1998 Morphology, Paleoanthropology, and Neanderthals. Anatomical Record 253: 113–117.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H. 2000 Skull Wars. Basic Books, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Torvik, S. 1999 Policy on Human Remains Hampers New Thinking on Archaeological Finds. Seattle Post Intelligencer. 5 December: Opinion page, http: //seattlepi.nwsource.com/.Google Scholar
Wilson, S. R. 1981 On Comparing Fossil Specimens with Population Samples. Journal of Human Evolution 10: 207–214.Google Scholar